Hansard, 1994-12-05

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated:- Encik Ibrahim bin Othman - from 7th to 11th November, 1994. Dr Lim Chun Leng, Michael - from 7th to 11th November, 1994. Dr Wong Kwei Cheong - from 8th to 10th November, from 21st to 30th November and from 6th to 8th December, 1994. Mr Lau Ping Sum - from 8th to 12th November, 1994. Mr S. Chandra Das - from 8th to 11th November, 1994. Mr Goh Chee Wee - from 8th to 18th November, from 21st to 25th November and from 3rd to 9th December, 1994. Dr Beng Kian Lam, Arthur - from 8th to 11th November and from 6th to 10th December, 1994. Prof S. Jayakumar - from 10th to 14th November and from 16th to 20th December, 1994. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo - from 12th to 15th November, from 5th to 8th December, 1994, and from 18th to 22nd December. Dr Tony Tan Keng Yam - from 14th to 16th November and on 2nd December, 1994. Mr Chng Hee Kok - from 14th to 15th November, 1994. Mr Charles Chong - from 14th to 17th November, from 20th to 24th November and from 4th to 10th December, 1994. Dr Wan Soon Bee - from 14th to 18th November, 1994. Mr Peh Chin Hua - from 15th to 21st November and from 1st to 11th December, 1994. Dr Ho Tat Kin - from 16th to 29th November, 1994. Mr Lim Boon Heng - from 19th to 27th November, 1994. Mr Zulkifli bin Mohammed - from 19th to 27th November, 1994. Mr Lim Hng Kiang - from 20th to 25th November and from 6th to 18th December, 1994. Mr Bernard Chen - from 20th to 30th November, 1994. Mr Loh Meng See - from 20th to 26th November, 1994. Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee - from 20th to 25th November, 1994. Mr Leong Horn Kee - from 20th to 30th November, 1994. Mr K. Shanmugam - from 20th to 23rd November and from 3rd to 6th December, 1994. Mr Chay Wai Chuen - from 21st November to 2nd December, 1994. Mr Eugene Yap Giau Cheng - from 22nd to 26th November, 1994. Dr Lau Teik Soon - from 22nd November to 3rd December, 1994. Mr Mah Bow Tan - from 22nd to 27th November, 1994. Encik Othman bin Haron Eusofe - from 25th to 29th November and from 12th to 27th December, 1994. Mr Choo Wee Khiang - from 27th to 30th November, 1994. Mr Ho Kah Leong - from 28th November to 7th December, 1994. Mr Chin Harn Tong - from 28th November to 10th December, 1994. Mr Yeo Toon Chia - from 28th November to 5th December, 1994. Mr Lew Syn Pau - from 28th November to 1st December and from 7th to 10th December, 1994. Mr S. Dhanabalan - on 28th November and from 12th to 20th December, 1994. Assoc. Prof. Low Seow Chay - from 28th to 30th November, 1994. Dr John Chen Seow Phun - from 30th November to 2nd December and from 7th December to 21st December, 1994. Dr Ahmad Mattar - from 30th November to 8th December, 1994. Encik Mohamad Maidin B P M - from 1st to 10th December, 1994. Mr Tan Soo Khoon - from 1st to 4th December, from 8th to 9th December and from 15th to 17th December, 1994. Encik Sidek bin Saniff - from 4th to 7th December and from 18th to 31st December, 1994. Dr Yeo Ning Hong - from 5th to 8th December and from 18th to 24th December, 1994. Mr Peter Sung - from 5th to 9th December, 1994. RAdm Teo Chee Hean - from 5th to 8th December and from 12th to 16th December, 1994. Encik Harun bin A. Ghani - from 5th to 10th December, 1994. Dr Wang Kai Yuen - from 5th to 7th December, 1994. Mr Davinder Singh - from 6th to 7th December, 1994. Mr Ch'ng Jit Koon - from 7th to 14th December, 1994. Mr Lee Yock Suan - from 8th to 24th December, 1994. Dr S. Vasoo - from 8th to 12th December, 1994. Mr Ling How Doong - from 15th December, 1994 to 4th January, 1995. Mr Abdullah Tarmugi - from 17th to 26th December, 1994. Mr Wong Kan Seng - from 18th to 28th December, 1994. Dr Lee Boon Yang - from 18th to 28th December, 1994. Mr Matthias Yao Chih - from 19th to 31st December, 1994. BG Lee Hsien Loong - from 19th to 23rd December, 1994. Encik Yatiman Yusof - from 19th to 28th December, 1994. Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon - from 21st to 31st December, 1994. Dr Aline K. Wong - from 24th to 26th December, 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the dates stated: 9th November, 1994 (i) Enlistment (Amendment) Bill 1994; and (ii) Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment No. 2) Bill 1994. 25th November, 1994 (i) Patents Bill 1994; (ii) Charities Bill 1994; and (iii)International Arbitration Bill 1994. TAN SOO KHOON Speaker Parliament of Singapore

asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether he will re-consider the current income ceilings set for applicants for Housing and Development Board rental and purchase flats.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of National Development has decided to raise the income ceilings for the purchase of 4-room and larger new HDB flats. The income ceilings will be increased from $7,000 to $8,000 for nuclear families, and from $11,000 to $12,000 for extended families. The revision will take effect from tomorrow, 6th December 1994. With this revision, 94% of households in Singapore will fall within the income ceilings. It will ensure that those who are unable to purchase private property will continue to be able to purchase HDB flats. There will be no revision to the income ceiling of $800 for rental HDB flats, as these are intended for those who cannot afford to buy their own flats. Families with household incomes of more than $800 are encouraged to buy their own flats through a variety of programmes to promote home ownership: First, HDB's buy-back of 3-room flats from the resale market, for subsidised sale to households earning $1,000 a month or less. The selling prices of these flats are such that an average household earning $800 a month should be able to afford the monthly instalments for the cheaper flats; and Second, HDB's 4A2 flats, which require an average household income of $1,100 to service the monthly instalments. With all these schemes, families with household incomes above $800 should be able to buy their own flats, rather than to rent them.

Is the Minister willing to consider revising the income ceiling of $1,000 for applicants of the buy-back scheme for 3-room HDB flats in the near future?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we started this programme only in October with the ceiling set at $1,000. With that ceiling, we have approximately 2,800 applicants for such flats. I think we should try and meet the demand of these 2,800 applicants first before we raise the ceiling further.

Sir, with the increase in the income ceiling, there is going to be a greater demand. Would the Minister consider increasing the supply, otherwise the waiting periods are going to be longer?

Sir, as I have already explained, the present ceilings cater for 92% of all Singapore households. With the higher ceiling, 94% are now eligible. Two extra percent will not significantly increase the application rate. Today, we are supplying 34,000 new flats. We are not inclined to supply more because that would stretch the resources of the construction industry and may have unexpected results on the quality of the flats.

Is the waiting period going to be changed as a result of the revision in income ceilings?

With this increase in income ceilings, we do not expect a big increase in the number of applications. So we do not expect a significant change in the waiting period.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development (a) what is the total amount of funds which have been disbursed by the Government for projects by the Community Improvement Projects Committee (CIPC) and how much of the said funds have been released to Opposition-controlled Town Councils for such projects; (b) why the CIPC comprises only PAP Members of Parliament and if non-politicians will be included in the Committee; and (c) if there are any guidelines for the Citizens' Consultative Committees on how to process applications in support of a CIPC project.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total amount of funds which has been disbursed by the Government for Community Improvement Projects Committee projects since the inception of the scheme in April 1990 is $51.2 million. We do not have records on CIPC funds released to Opposition-controlled Town Councils as the funds are allocated to the Citizens' Consultative Committees (CCCs) and not to the Town Councils. The CIPC comprises Advisers to the CCCs. The nine Advisers on the Committee happen to be PAP MPs. As the system works well at the moment, there is no need to change the composition of the CIPC. General guidelines have been provided to CCCs on how to request for funding support for their projects. However, the guidelines do not specify which projects the CCCs should submit. It is up to the CCCs to decide which projects within their constituencies they should support.

Sir, a question has been put to the Minister to specifically ask how much money has been disbursed to Opposition-controlled Town Councils. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary said that the money was disbursed through the CCCs. My question is: is it not incumbent upon the Minister, once a question has been asked, to find out how much money has been disbursed to Opposition wards in regard to CIPC projects? I think it is his duty to find out. How can he come to the House and avoid the question and say that it is the CCCs who are responsible for getting the funds?

Sir, I did not evade his question. No money was given to any Town Council, PAP or otherwise.

Thank you. So no money has been given at all. The next question I want to ask is: is it the policy to refuse grants for CIPC projects to Opposition-held constituencies?

Not at all, Sir.

Then why is it that Potong Pasir constituency has not received even one cent from the Government in regard to these grants whereas PAP wards have obtained $51.2 million? Why was our request for support for a CIPC project, ie, a walkway, refused?

Sir, as far as I know, the Potong Pasir CCC has not applied for any funds. Therefore, they have not been given any funds.

We have to apply through the CCC and that is the rule laid down by the PAP Government, and that is exactly what we did. Permission was refused outright and without reason. Is the Senior Parliamentary Secretary aware of the Potong Pasir Town Council's request for support of a CIPC project?

Sir, I am not aware of what transpired between Potong Pasir Town Council and Potong Pasir CCC.

In view of a question being filed in Parliament, is it not the duty of the Senior Parliamentary Secretary to find out whether an application has been made for support of a CIPC project at Potong Pasir? Is it not his duty to do so? He cannot just come to Parliament and say, "I do not know anything about it."

Sir, I have answered all his questions, including the one on whether any money was given to Opposition Town Councils. His Question is: how much money was disbursed, plus the composition of the CIPC and other details. I have answered all of them. If he asked whether I knew what happened between the Potong Pasir Town Council and the Potong Pasir CCC, I would have found out. But he did not ask, so I did not find out.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary appears to be rather naive.

Mr Chiam, could you get to the point and ask your supplementary question?

Yes. He says that since no such question was asked, it is not his duty to answer any question outside the Question asked. I want to ask him another question: do the grassroots leaders' decisions reflect the policies of the Government?

I do not know exactly what he means. But I think the grassroots leaders will decide according to the priorities of the residents in the estate and the constituency.

No. They must decide according to some guidelines. They cannot just arbitrarily decide on their own.

Mr Chiam, can you ask your question?

Yes. Do decisions made at the grassroots level reflect the policies of the PAP Government?

Sir, if he is asking a question on how the CCC decides on matters pertaining to the constituency, I think this is the wrong Ministry to ask.

I am just asking a question in regard to your Ministry.

Mr Chiam, ask your question, please.

I will be more specific. Do grassroots leaders' decisions made in regard to CIPC projects reflect the policies of the Government?

Sir, we have not given any instruction to any CCC on how to process these applications.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary has been reported over TV that most of the CIPC projects will receive Government support if they meet certain criteria and, if I can remember, he said that if they are useful and beneficial to the citizens, they will most probably be given CIPC support. I want to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary: is a walkway linking a block of flats to a bus stop a CIPC project?

If an application for such a project surfaces at the CIPC, the secretariat will evaluate the proposal, whether it links between two points that are frequently used by residents, how much the proposal is going to cost, whether it is ostentatious, using tiles that are unnecessarily expensive. All these things will be evaluated. So I cannot tell him whether a linkway will be approved at all.

The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned about the secretariat. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that once an application has been made to the CCC, the CCC will let the secretariat Ž I do not know what secretariat Ž know of this application? Is that correct?

That is correct if the CCC makes the application to the CIPC.

What is this secretariat? Can he explain to me?

The secretariat comprises civil servants and Ministry officials who will process the applications and advise the CIPC on whether the guidelines have been followed.

Has the Potong Pasir Town Council's application for CIPC support in regard to construction of a walkway been given to the secretariat for processing?

No.

Why not, if that is the procedure?

Let me repeat the procedure. If the Potong Pasir Town Council or a resident or a RC or the Civil Defence Coordinating Committee or somebody in the constituency says, "Why not do this?", the CCC will evaluate. If the CCC supports this proposal, it will draw up specifications, state the budget and submit it to the CIPC. The CIPC will refer it to the officials for initial evaluation. The Potong Pasir Town Council's project never surfaced, so we are not aware of it.

I want to know why the Potong Pasir CCC did not submit the application for CIPC support to the secretariat.

First, I do not know why and, second, if he wants to know why a CCC makes a certain decision, the Ministry of National Development is the wrong ministry to ask.

Mr Chiam, do you have any other supplementary questions on this subject? You are straying from the substantive question.

As regards the composition of the CIPC, why should only MPs from the PAP be included in this Committee?

Sir, if he heard my answer, the nine members are Advisers to the CCCs. They are in charge of CCC projects and whatever the CCCs wish to do for the residents. They happen to be PAP Members of Parliament. This question has been asked many times by Mr Chiam about him being an Adviser. The answer is that he is not an Adviser.

Anyone looking at the composition, with only PAP Members, would it not be deemed that it is very political in nature?

Mr Chiam, you are asking more or less the same question over and over again. Unless you have something new to ask, I intend to move on to the next Question. Have you got anything new to ask?

I will ask another supplementary question. Can I assume that Opposition wards will never get the recommendation of their grassroots' organisation in relation to any application for support of CIPC projects in their constituencies? Can I take that?

I do not think he can make such an assumption. Anyway, I cannot answer this because the CCCs will decide on the merits of each application.

I do not believe that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has no control ---

Order. Mr Chiam, I think you are still asking more or less similar questions. I will allow you one more supplementary question because we have to move on.

All right. Do you have control over your grassroots' organisation, ie, the CCC, and its Chairman?

That depends on what he means by "control". Anyway, the Ministry of National Development has no control - if he calls it "control" - over CCCs. It is the Ministry of Community Development that is in charge of CCCs.

asked the Minister for Health how successful has the ban from smoking for the under eighteen-year-old been in curtailing young teenagers from taking up the habit and whether enforcement measures taken have been adequate.

Mr Speaker, Sir, to implement the ban on smoking for the under-18 year olds, the Ministry of Health has set up the Smoking Control Unit. Since June 1993, the Ministry of Health Inspectors have made a total of 10,007 random checks on cigarette retail outlets. To date, 25 retail outlets have been fined for not displaying the required notice of prohibition of sale of cigarettes. Another 18 retail outlets have been fined for illegal sale of tobacco to persons under 18 years old. In addition, a total of 1,795 underaged youths were caught smoking. Of these, 5% were repeat offenders. It is still too early to tell whether the measures implemented have been successful in curtailing young teenagers from taking up the smoking habit. Apart from enforcement actions, we place great emphasis on health education in the schools on the harmful effects of smoking. Our anti-smoking campaign also concentrates on young smokers as a special target group.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development whether he is aware of any divorces due to husbands having an affair overseas and whether this will become a trend in the future.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am aware of the concerns expressed by individuals and groups on husbands having affairs while overseas. These issues have been highlighted in our local newspapers and in a recent dialogue session held by the Feedback Unit of my Ministry. Unfortunately, Sir, I do not have information on the number of divorces due to husbands having affairs overseas. Therefore, I cannot tell whether husbands having affairs when they are abroad will become a trend in the future. My hope is that the instances quoted in the press and by others are more the exception than the rule. Statistics, however, do show that the number of divorces granted on grounds of adultery is small in Singapore. In 1993, for example, such cases accounted for only 4.3% (or 113 cases) of the 2,602 divorces granted under the Women's Charter. Sir, I believe that strong family, religious and moral values serve as a powerful ballast against temptations. Ways should also be found for wives to accompany their husbands who have to work or do business abroad for long periods. Wives who are willing to do so would find that their marriages would be reinforced by their shared experience in less familiar places. In the final analysis, the success of a marriage and the well-being of the family depends on the commitment and desire of the couple to make their marriage work and to keep their family intact.

asked the Minister for Education (a) how many students were expelled from schools for each of the years from 1991 to 1993 and, for the same period how many of them were admitted to other schools; and (b) whether he will consider a special scheme to rehabilitate the expelled students.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the number of students expelled from schools in the last three years and the number of these students admitted to other schools after expulsion are as follows: 1991 - 15 expelled and three admitted. 1992 - 16 expelled and three admitted. 1993 - nine expelled and none admitted. Our schools are doing their utmost to ensure that almost all pupils will complete at least 10 years of general education. Recalcitrant pupils are given many opportunities to realise the error of their ways through counselling and disciplinary measures. Expulsion is a course of action taken only as a last resort in the case of pupils who have resisted all attempts made by the school to correct their behaviour. Among these are pupils who have run foul of the law and are therefore more appropriately dealt with by due process of the law. Others are asked to leave school for repeated serious offences such as persistent defiance and disregard for school rules, gangsterism, bullying and other extreme disorderly conduct. Principals must have the authority ultimately to expel such recalcitrant pupils to maintain discipline and good order and for the safety and welfare of other pupils in the schools. There are existing schemes to rehabilitate pupils who have broken the laws of society or who need close supervision for other reasons. My Ministry will cooperate with but not duplicate such schemes. Various homes set up by the Ministry of Community Development and other organisations provide care for youths who need supervision. Youths on probation and the inmates of these homes who are of school-going age can continue to attend school and are closely monitored by probation officers, the school and the home. Our schools will continue to work with the parties involved and make every effort to rehabilitate recalcitrant youths. Ultimately, however, these youths must have a desire to learn and benefit from the educational opportunities offered to them. Those who do not would be better off seeking gainful employment outside the education system.

Sir, is the Minister aware that some students are being expelled for not doing well in school and not for disciplinary reasons? If he is, does he condone expulsion on those grounds?

Sir, I am not aware of any such case. If the Member is aware, she should bring it to my attention.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs why the staging of local shows by foreign soft porn actresses is allowed.

Sir, all public performances, whether they involve foreign or local artistes, are permitted by the Public Entertainments Licensing Unit (PELU) only if the police assess that they would not pose law and order problems, or be offensive to the general public. If any artiste has a reputation of performing acts which are likely to hurt local sensitivities or are considered obscene, PELU would exercise greater care in scrutinising the application to assess whether the artiste is likely to flout PELU's conditions. If there is any doubt that the artiste would comply with the licensing conditions, the performance would not be allowed. In the recent case which I believe prompted this question, the Hong Kong soft porn actress, Loletta Lee, complied with all the licensing conditions. In fact, a newspaper reported that the audience was disappointed and the club lost $200,000 as a result of her performance. This, I think, speaks well for the police system of control over public entertainment.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary know that topless shows are allowed in Singapore? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of that?

I am certainly aware of that, and I think I should be aware of that. Topless floor shows are generally not allowed except in a few well-established theatre restaurants-cum-night clubs. For example, at the moment, there are four such establishments which are allowed to have topless shows. Such shows are strictly controlled and the establishments concerned have to comply with very strict conditions. These include barring persons below 18 years of age from seeing the show. These shows are subject to preview by the police before a licence is issued.

What is the need to allow topless shows even under controlled conditions?

I think we cannot go overboard in censoring such performances. We have to maintain a balance. The alternative would be to ban all such shows. But I think censorship in Singapore on the whole is generally loosening up. We allow this loosening up but subject to strict controls.

Would Singapore be any less poorer culturally if we were to ban topless shows?

Like I have mentioned, we have to take this in the context of general censorship law. It is not a matter of whether or not people see topless shows or whether that particular incident will have any significance. But generally, as Singapore opens up to the world, we would have all these pervasive influences coming in through the media. So we want to strike a balance, and this is the balance that we have struck which we think is appropriate.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development whether lessees of Housing and Development Board flats will be compensated for the return of flats upon the expiry of their 99-year lease.

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB flats are sold on 99-year leases, so as to allow the sites to be re-developed in the future to meet the prevailing needs, and to allow new designs and technology to be implemented. The lease period is long enough to see through at least the first two generations of families occupying the flats. In fact, the remaining lease periods of the oldest HDB flats are still about 71 years. Those who buy their flats from others should know the expiry date of the flats' leases; the price they pay for the lease takes into account the remaining lease period. Under the lease contract, HDB would not need to pay lessees any compensation when their leases expire.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development what is the total amount of fines and compositions collected by the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Housing and Development Board for parking offences for 1993 and from January to October 1994.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the total fines and composition collected for parking offences by HDB and URA for the year 1993 and the year 1994 (from January to October) were $49.2 million and $39.4 million respectively.

asked the Minister for Communications whether he will permit private mini-bus operators to provide feeder services within new towns and along other routes not served by current bus companies.

Mr Speaker, Sir, private operators will be allowed to operate bus services which do not duplicate the basic bus service operated by the main operators. This is because the main bus operators are obliged to provide universal service, in other words, they have to operate both profitable and unprofitable services. Private operators, on the other hand, do not have to fulfil this obligation and therefore they can choose to run only profitable services if they wish to do so. However, private operators can play a useful role in supplementing the services provided by the main bus operators. The Public Transport Council will consider bus service applications from private operators, based on the following principles: (1) If the proposed bus service is comparable to the basic bus service in quality and fares, it must operate within the main basic bus network, so that there is no wasteful duplication of services. This is necessary so that basic bus fares are kept affordable. (2) If the proposed service offers a higher quality service at higher fares, for example, Bus-Plus services, there will be no restriction on the route because it serves a different market from the basic bus service.

Sir, would the Minister consider allowing private operators to operate in some new towns where the present feeder bus services are insufficient and the travelling time is increased?

As I have indicated in my answer just now, if the application is from a private operator who wishes to run the service which is targeted at a different market segment, then the Public Transport Council will consider that application.

Sir, what does the Minister mean by "targeted sectors" because they are all one sector in the new town?

In other words, it is a service which is not directly duplicating the basic bus service in terms of quality and fares. For example, if an operator wishes to run a coach-type service or an air-conditioned coach-type service at a different fare, that would be considered to be aiming at a different market segment, even if the route duplicates the basic bus routes.

Why does the Minister not allow private operators to compete with SBS and other related operators in the new town?

As I have explained earlier, the main bus operators, in this case, SBS and TIBS, are obliged to operate a universal service obligation, which means that we expect them to run both the good as well as the bad services. In other words, they enjoy the meat but they also have to operate some bones. If we allow private bus operators to only go for the meat, then I am afraid it is very difficult for us to also equally require the operators to go and take some of the less profitable or even unprofitable services. So there is a question of fairness involved here.

When the Minister mentioned about enjoying the meat in the new towns, does he mean the operators can also share?

There is also a lot of bones. So if private operators are prepared to take some of the bones as well, then we can consider their application.

asked the Minister for Health (a) how many persons have gone overseas for kidney transplants; (b) how many persons are on the waiting list for kidney transplants; (c) what is the waiting period for such transplants; and (d) how many of those persons who had gone overseas for kidney transplants contracted HIV or died.

Mr Speaker, Sir, between 1986 and 1993, a total of 172 patients went overseas for kidney transplants. The transplants were done mainly in India and China. About half of them acquired various types of infections following their transplants, of whom four persons contracted the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. So far, 11 have died and another 11 have lost their grafts after returning to Singapore. As at January 1994, 429 patients are on the Transplant Register awaiting kidney transplants. Of these, 150 are new patients registered in 1993. The median waiting time for transplants is three years.

Sir, for the patients who are on the waiting list, is there any priority given for non-medical reasons, for example, if the patient is the breadwinner of the family? Are there any such criteria?

There are some administrative criteria used. Being a main breadwinner of the family does give some consideration for priority.

asked the Minister for Trade and Industry why Singapore's acceptance of the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the World Trade Organisation need not be ratified by Parliament.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under Singapore's system of government, the Cabinet has the authority to enter into international treaties on behalf of the Republic. Hence, the Cabinet approved the signing and ratification of the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation. The WTO Agreement encompasses a whole host of agreements covering various areas of world trade. A review of the various agreements forming part of the WTO Agreement is underway to identify the changes we need to make to our laws to bring them into conformity with our obligations under the WTO Agreement. Parliament's approval for the amending legislation will be sought in due course.

Sir, how does the ratification of WTO affect Singapore's position in regard to the free trade area that Singapore is going to enter in 2010, under an APEC agreement? How do these two reconcile with each other?

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, under the existing GATT arrangements, there are rules which allow certain types of free trade agreements to be legitimate under GATT. So if your legislation complies with the GATT rules, then you may set up a free trade area. I imagine, although I am not a trade lawyer, that the same will apply under the WTO. Secondly, Mr Chiam may be mistaken in thinking that we are going to set up an APEC free trade area in 2010. The goal is APEC free trade in 2010. A free trade area connotes specific legislation, hard commitment, precise organisational arrangements. APEC free trade is an ideal. It can be done informally, it can be done unilaterally. How it will be done will be discussed in due course. But there is no commitment to set up a free trade area.

asked the Minister for Finance what is the total amount spent in sending Ministers, Members of Parliament and official delegations abroad for 1993 and from January to October 1994.

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are two categories of expenses incurred in sending Ministers, MPs and officials overseas. One category covers Official Visits Overseas in which Ministerial delegations from Singapore travel overseas in response to invitations from foreign governments. The purpose of such visits is to promote bilateral relations and trade. Under this category, the expenditure in 1993 was $2,228,576 and the expenditure in 1994 up to the end of October was $2,309,884. The second category covers Conferences Overseas in which official delegations from Singapore attend conferences organised by multilateral organisations such as the United Nations, ASEAN, APEC, GATT, and so forth, and a variety of technical and specialist international agencies. Under this category, the expenditure in 1993 was $2,147,610 and the expenditure in 1994 up to the end of October was $2,166,619. The total of $4.48 million spent so far in 1994 is necessary to maintain Singapore's position in the rapidly changing world economic and political order. Such expenditure is expected to increase in future years, in line with Singapore's growing economic strength and its regionalisation drive.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development what is the root cause of the serious crack of the column at Block 538 Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 and whether he will assure the public that similar incidents will not occur in other housing estates.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the root cause of the crack was the poor quality of the concrete in that particular column. As my Ministry has earlier announced, the column has since been repaired and reinforced to six times its design strength. HDB has also confirmed that the remaining columns in Block 538 are all structurally sound, and that the building as a whole can carry three times the normal load it is designed to bear. I assure the public that this incident was an isolated case, and that all HDB buildings are structurally sound. HDB buildings are designed in such a way that even if one column is damaged, the overall stability of the building will not be affected, as the load on that column will be spread to the other columns.

Sir, did the HDB specify the grade of concrete that should be used for the structure?

All the materials and all the designs in HDB flats are built according to the building code. So the quality of concrete was stipulated according to the building code.

If the quality of material is specified, how could this particular column fail because of poor quality of concrete?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we are also a bit perplexed as to how that could happen, because HDB constructs millions of columns and this is one column that has failed. HDB has in place a very strict quality control system of examining the quality of the concrete before it is set in situ, especially for load-bearing columns. So we assess that this is a very isolated case. Out of the millions of columns we built, this is the only column that has cracked. We are not sure how it happened. It was probably due to poor workmanship at the point where the column was being cast.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I understand from the Acting Minister that it was due to poor quality of concrete, but he mentioned about poor workmanship. My supplementary question is: if that happens once in this particular case, and he has mentioned that we have built millions of columns, would the same kind of incident happen in other blocks due probably to other factors?

Mr Speaker, Sir, HDB has a very stringent system of building inspections, done both by the Town Councils as well as by the structural teams in HDB. All HDB flats are inspected once every 10 years, as required under the law. In addition, if there are any cracks on load-bearing structures, HDB will immediately investigate. Our experience so far is that our buildings are built according to specifications and they are safe. In this particular case, the poor quality of the concrete could be due, as I said, to the mixing of the concrete when it was being constructed.

Sir, does the HDB have an existing system of inspection of flats, especially structural loads, during a certain year to ensure safety or detection of possible concrete failure?

Mr Speaker, Sir, as I mentioned just now, under the Building Control Act, all residential buildings must be inspected at least once every 10 years. HDB has done so. In addition, HDB's structural engineers go round the flats all the time, especially if there are complaints about cracks or problems of defect. So HDB has a systematic programme to inspect all its buildings. Let me also stress the point I made earlier. The buildings are designed in such a way that even if one column has cracked due to the poor grade of concrete in that column, the rest of the columns will be able to take the load. It is designed to take up to three times. So there is plenty of redundancy, a very high safety factor.

Sir, the Minister has said that the pillar of this particular block has been strengthened six times. Why is there a necessity? Normally, I believe, it is only three times. Has the HDB assumed that the others were also about to buckle up?

First of all, all the other columns have been inspected by HDB. As our press statement indicated earlier towards the end of last month, all the columns have been assessed to have a safety factor of at least 1.8, that means, all the columns in this block have a safety factor of at least 1.

8. In this particular column which cracked, HDB put in the steel reinforcement. When you put in the steel reinforcement, and the encasement of concrete around it, you need a certain cover, and therefore it ends up six times.

In view of this incident, has the HDB stepped up its inspection of other blocks of flats built about that time?

HDB has an on-going programme of inspecting all its blocks regularly once every 10 years. In view of this, HDB is putting more resources to also conduct more inspections.

Can the Minister tell us, in view of this incident and that he has stepped up inspection, what is the result of the inspection so far?

HDB has been inspecting its blocks since 1991 after the introduction of the Building Control Act, and all the blocks have been safe. We are accelerating the inspection and we will know the results as inspections are under way. Let me assure him that all the blocks are safe.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development why three blocks of Housing and Development Board executive flats being built at Serangoon Avenue 2 were included in the balloting exercise for the second quarter of 1994 though they were not advertised in the newspapers.

Mr Speaker, Sir, under the Booking System, it was HDB's practice to schedule building contracts for tender before they were advertised for offer in the quarterly booking exercises. As the tender for the three blocks of Executive flats at Serangoon Avenue 2 was scheduled for October 1994, it was therefore not advertised for offer in the Second Quarter booking exercise held in April 1994. During the April 1994 exercise, however, there was an overwhelming demand for flats in Serangoon. HDB therefore had to advance the three blocks of Executive flats in Serangoon for balloting in the April 1994 exercise, even though tender has not been closed for these three blocks, in order to ensure that new households would be successful in booking a flat by their fifth attempt, and upgraders by their ninth attempt.

Sir, does the Minister agree that many residents who wanted to upgrade in this estate were deprived of the opportunity because of this and, therefore, will he consider asking HDB to make a public apology?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the contrary. Even if new applicants wanted to apply for these three blocks later on in October 1994, they would have been at the end of the queue and they would not have been balloted for these blocks of flats. The reason why we put the flats for booking after the tender is that we will know the prices of the tender. But in this case, HDB stuck its neck out and put up these three blocks for balloting so as to satisfy the demand even though they did not know the tender prices. So in a way, HDB was taking a risk that the tender prices might be much higher and that it would end up with a greater subsidy. It is to HDB's credit that they made this management decision to accelerate the balloting of these three blocks so as to satisfy the applicants for those flats in Serangoon. If we had delayed the balloting of these three blocks and put them in a later exercise when new applicants submit their applications, they would not have a chance for these blocks of flats in any case.

Does the Minister agree that by doing so, residents who want to upgrade are deprived of the opportunity to do so because existing residents enjoy certain priority?

Let me explain again. In the Serangoon and Hougang areas, the number of applicants to the number of flats is now almost 10:1. And to enable the new households to be successful by the fifth attempt and the upgraders by the ninth attempt, we have to put a certain supply of flats for sale each time. If we had not put up these three blocks, then the new households would still not get their flats on the fifth attempt and the upgraders would not get theirs on the ninth attempt. They would apply subsequently in October and that would be their sixth attempt and tenth attempt respectively. They would be very high in the queue and they have got these three blocks. So instead of waiting for them to re-apply in October and give them these three blocks, HDB took the management decision to put these three blocks for sale and allocate them to the people on the queue earlier.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development if he will consider constructing a temporary concrete footpath from Yishun Medical Centre to Yishun Central 1 in the open space opposite Block 647 of Yishun Central.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the footpath proposed by Mr Cheo would be on a parcel of State land reserved for future development. As such, the Government has no plans to construct a concrete footpath on this site.

Sir, can the Ministry provide a temporary footpath?

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I said that the Government has no plans to construct a concrete footpath, it means both temporary and permanent footpaths.

Sir, is there any footpath built on Government land which is in the PAP ward?

Mr Speaker, Sir, there are temporary or permanent footpaths built in both PAP and non-PAP wards.

Sir, is the Minister aware that we have many parcels of State land and you can find many walkways in these open spaces? Why is the Ministry taking a different standard in this matter?

Mr Speaker, Sir, we do not enforce different standards. We do not want to have encumbrances on State land, whether it is a temporary footpath or a permanent footpath. Because later on, the State land will have to be put up for sale, there will be redevelopment, and the footpath will be removed. In some cases, we do allow footpaths to be built because they serve a very large number of people and we assess that the development will not take place for a very long time.

Sir, the Minister says that a footpath will be built if there is a large number of people using it. What does the Minister mean by a "large number"? Assuming that the footpath in Yishun qualifies in terms of the number of people using it, would he be willing to construct a footpath there?

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not have the number of pedestrians moving per hour that PWD uses for its determination on the construction of footpaths. But as I explained in this House before, PWD has certain criteria before it builds a footpath and other criteria before it builds a covered footpath. There are two reasons for building footpaths. Firstly, if there is a big demand based on the criteria used by PWD, and, secondly, if we assess that the land would not be used for a long time, it is worthwhile to put in public money to construct a footpath. If the development is to take place very soon, then by the time you constructed a footpath, you have got to dig it up and redevelop it a few years later. That would be a waste of public funds.

I am talking about this particular footpath in Yishun. If it meets all the criteria, would the HDB be willing to build a footpath there, ie, it qualifies in terms of pedestrian traffic, usefulness, and also in terms of the length of time in which it would be there?

Obviously, if it qualifies, then it would have been built.

So the Minister is giving an assurance to this House that if it qualifies, it will be built. Am I correct?

I said that if it qualifies, it would have been built.

Will the Ministry conduct a survey to justify the demand?

PWD has assessed that this footpath is not used so frequently as to meet its criteria and, therefore, it is not recommended that it be built.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to know from the Minister whether he would like to put up a fence to prevent trespassing.

We also do not want to put up a fence because when the land is being built, we have got to tear down the fence. That would be a waste of public resources. We control our expenditure very tightly.

Will the Minister be willing to give such criteria in writing, if requested to do so, in regard to the building of footpaths on public land?

If you raise a Question, both oral and written, we will provide the answer and the criteria. 1.23 pm

"to amend the Architects Act (Chapter 12 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by the Acting Minister for National Development (Mr Lim Hng Kiang); read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

"to amend the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 253 of the 1992 Revised Edition)", presented by Mr Lim Hng Kiang; read the First time; to be read a Second time on the next available sitting of Parliament, and to be printed.

Order for Second and Third Readings read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The purpose of this Bill is to make provision in accordance with clause 2 of Article 148 and clause 2 of Article 148C of the Constitution for additional expenditure in excess of the provisions authorised by the Supply Act, 1994. The additional sums have been presented as Supplementary Estimates which have been considered and approved by the House as Command Paper No. 14 of 1994. Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Third time."

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Third time.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." Sir, this Bill has several objectives. Firstly, it raises the lower limit under section 6(1) for the payment to the Public Trustee of compensation moneys for injuries received in traffic accidents, by an insurer or the owner of a motor vehicle, from the present sum of $500 to $5,000. Secondly, it sets a lower limit of $5,000 under subsections 9(1) and 9(8) for the payment to the Public Trustee of the amount awarded by the court against any person insured for third-party risks. Finally, it sets a lower limit of $5,000 under section 18(3) for the taxation by the court of legal costs in respect of actions for damages for injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents. For those not familiar with this legislation, let me say that the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act (`the Act') was first passed in 1960, ie, more than 34 years ago. The provisions then and now require the Public Trustee to carry out the following -

Mr Speaker, Sir, firstly, I must declare my interest. I am a practising solicitor. I would like to refer to clause 2 of the Bill whereby the amendment attempts to amend section 6 (1) of the principal Act by changing the figure of $500 to $5,000. In my mind, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a proliferation of cases and it has increased by about 41.3% and the amount involved is over $62 million. The number of cases and the sums involved are quite large. I think a more appropriate figure should be $10,000 rather than $5,000. The figure of $5,000 is too small, especially when the last amendment was made in 1960, which was 34 years ago. The value of money has diminished and, as the Minister has pointed out, there are a great number of cases jamming up the probably under-staffed Public Trustee's Office. From my experience, I found that the Public Trustee's Office is rather slow in paying out compensation money. Probably the main reason is that it is very shorthanded and sometimes it takes more than two months for money to be paid out. So it can cause hardship and difficulties to those who have already suffered personal injuries, and especially if they are poor, they have to wait for a long time to get their money. I am not talking of those cases that have to go to court and the long drawn court battles. Sometimes these smaller claims are settled quite quickly and they have to wait for such a long time for the Public Trustee to pay out the money. Even some cynics have said that the Public Trustee is probably keeping the money to earn interest. I hope it is not so and it is untrue. As regards the requirement of the insurers to pay out the money under section 18 (3) of the principal Act, formerly no amount was mentioned. But now, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, there is a lower figure of $5,000. I do not actually see the necessity of pegging it to a figure. Once an injured person gets a judgment, there is already a debt owing to him. He is a judgment creditor. Of course, the original section 18 (3) makes it a duty for the insurance company to pay out. But now they do not have to pay out for any sum less than $5,000. Why is there this necessity? In fact, this amendment makes the injured person at a more disadvantageous position. So I cannot really see the rationale of wanting to have this lower figure of $5,000. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this further. I do not think that the Ministry or any Government department will be made less busy if this is put at a lower figure of $5,000 whereby it is necessary for the insurance company to pay out.

Sir, the Member asks why we have chosen $5,000. He suggests raising it to $10,000. I think we should take a cautious approach. By raising the current limit from $500 to $5,000, the savings in terms of number of cases - I think the Member very rightly points out, the Official Assignee and Public Trustee's Office is working very hard, not only in terms of Public Trustee's cases but also bankruptcy and other cases - he will have a saving of, based on 1993 figures, 30%. I think we can work with that figure and we can live with it. For the moment, we are lifting it by 10% - from $500 to $5,000. We should take that approach and in due course, after review, if there is indeed a need to raise it further, we can consider that. The other point that he mentioned is - I think he does not fully appreciate the ambit of section 18 (3) - the question of taxation. Currently, all courts ---

It is not taxation. I am talking about judgment debt. Formerly, there was no figure. The insurance companies have a duty to satisfy the judgment debt despite some of the reasons given in that section. But now they are not required to pay out if the claim is less than $5,000.

I do not think that is the ambit of the amendment. You mentioned section 18 (3). Section 18 (3) in fact talks about the question of mandatory taxation.

Sorry, it should be section 18 (1).

Section 18 (1) is not being amended. The amendments are to sections 6 (1), 9 (1) and (8) and 18 (3).

I am referring to probably section 9 whereby it is the duty of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment debt. No figure was given in the past. But now you have made it a lower figure of $5,000. I believe this is probably section 9. Section 18 (3) is in regard to taxation. I am sorry about that.

Section 9 (1) and (8) sets a lower limit for the payment to the Public Trustee of the amount awarded by a court against any person insured for third-party risks. I think here there is a need also for the Public Trustee to be involved in looking at the matter from a macro level. In other words, whether it is a settlement out of court where you have got an insurance company paying or a court settlement under section 9 (1) and (8), he should look at it from a macro level. He should be the facilitator through which the monies can be paid. That is the ambit of the amendment.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Finance Companies Act was last amended in November 1984. Since then, the operating environment for finance companies has changed significantly. This has made it necessary to review the Act to ensure its continued effectiveness in fostering prudent operations of finance companies and sound supervision of the industry. Finance companies now face intense competition from banks in the retail financing business. Banks are encroaching into activities traditionally the domain of finance companies, such as the financing and purchase of cars and houses. Some finance companies have responded by merging in order to compete. As a result, the number of finance companies fell from 34 in 1984 to 23 today. Between 1984 and September 1994, total assets of the industry expanded by 142% from $7.2 billion to $17.4 billion while total pre-tax profits rose by 117% from $135 million to $293 million between 1984 and 1993. In the past decade, many financial institutions suffered large loan losses as a result of imprudent lending to the property and stock markets. In some cases, governments have had to spend massive sums of taxpayers' money to rescue insolvent financial institutions. Regulators are now much more conscious of the need for financial institutions to be adequately capitalised to provide for unexpected losses. These experiences also underscored the need to ensure that regulations for the supervision of financial institutions are continually updated to keep pace with market developments and the scale of operations of these financial institutions. The proposed amendments to the Finance Companies Act are needed to update regulations so that they can continue to be effective in preserving the health of the industry. Prudential requirements in the Act would be brought in line with the amendments to the Banking Act in 1993, and with developments in international supervision standards. The Bill seeks to enhance prudential standards for finance companies, introduce procedures for investigation of drug money laundering offences and improve MAS' supervision of finance companies. The Bill also liberalises a number of regulations to provide greater scope and flexibility for the operation of finance companies. MAS has discussed the proposed amendments with the Finance Houses Association of Singapore whose views have been taken into consideration in the drafting of the Bill. I will now touch on the main provisions of the Bill, which will: (a) increase capital requirements for finance companies in order to strengthen their financial resources; (b) require finance companies to transfer part of their profits to a reserve fund, in line with a similar provision in the Banking Act; (c) extend the existing prohibition on finance companies from dealing in gold and foreign currencies to investments in other precious metals and foreign currency denominated securities; (d) reduce the single customer loan limit from 30% to 25% of capital funds of finance companies; (e) require directors of finance companies to indemnify their companies against losses arising from unsecured loans granted to private and non-listed public companies in which the directors of the finance companies control or have an interest; (f) facilitate the investigation of suspected drug money laundering activities pursuant to the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act; (g) give legal force to existing requirements on provisions for bad and doubtful debts, publication of audited accounts, granting of loans and advances to persons related to a finance company or its directors and disclosure of interests by directors of a finance company in loans granted by the finance company; (h) liberalise the scope of activities for finance companies with capital funds of at least $100 million by allowing them to deal in foreign exchange, foreign currency denominated investments and precious metals up to 10% of their capital funds; (i) exempt finance companies' loans to Government and banks from the single customer loan limit and the substantial loans limit; and (j) exempt finance companies' purchases of Singapore Government securities and statutory board bonds from the unsecured loans limit. I will now explain the main provisions of the Bill in greater detail. Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 7 of the Act to require finance companies to have minimum capital funds of $50 million. The minimum paid-up capital requirement for finance companies has remained unchanged at only $0.5 million since 1968. In view of the strong growth in finance companies' operations over the past 25 years, the minimum capital requirement of $0.5 million is now grossly inadequate for their operations and to protect depositors' interests. It is proposed that existing finance companies be required to have a minimum capital fund of $50 million. As at the end of November 1994, 13 of the 23 finance companies have capital funds above $50 million. Two of the 10 companies with capital funds below $50 million are bank-owned and should have no difficulty in raising funds to meet the new capital standard. The remaining eight companies with capital funds below $50 million and are not affiliated with any bank would be given a relatively long period of eight years to build up their capital to the required level. Alternatively, they can meet the new capital requirement through mergers. New applicants for finance company licences would be required to have minimum paid-up capital of $50 million. Presently, finance companies are not required to observe any minimum capital adequacy ratio. As recommended by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), the capital adequacy ratio is a measure of the adequacy of capital funds of financial institutions relative to the size and risk of their loan and investment portfolios. Assets which carry a higher level of credit risk need to be supported by a higher amount of capital. To ensure that finance companies' capital resources are adequate in relation to the scale and risks of their operations and to enable them to better absorb unexpected losses, the Bill proposes to require finance companies to maintain a minimum capital adequacy ratio of 12%, which is the same as that prescribed for banks. Finance companies would be given one year to comply with this requirement. Most finance companies currently have capital adequacy ratios exceeding the 12% standard. Clause 6 deals with the transfer of profits to the reserve fund. As the minimum paid-up capital of finance companies would ultimately be raised from $0.5 million to $50 million, the existing formula for the transfer of profits to the reserve fund would become obsolete. Under the new provisions, all finance companies would be required to transfer at least 50% of after-tax profits to the reserve fund if the reserve fund is less than 50% of paid-up capital. If the reserve fund ismore than 50% but less than 100% of paid-up capital, the sum to be transferred should not be less than 25% of after-tax profits. If the reserve fund is 100% or more of the paid-up capital, the amount to be transferred should not be less than 5% of after-tax profits. This is in line with the requirement for banks. Finance companies currently cannot deal in gold or foreign exchange. Such transactions carry higher risks and finance companies which are generally less well capitalised may not have the expertise and resources to conduct such activities. The Bill proposes to extend the prohibition on dealings in gold and foreign exchange to cover investments in other precious metals, and bonds and shares denominated in foreign currencies. The Bill also proposes to reduce the single customer lending limit. Currently, a finance company is not allowed to grant credit facilities to any single borrower or any group of connected borrowers in excess of 30% of its capital funds. The Bill proposes to reduce the limit to 25% to bring it in line with the Banking Act and the recommendation of the BIS. Finance companies would be given two years to bring existing credit facilities within the new limit. The lower limit should not adversely affect finance companies' ability to extend credit facilities to their customers as the finance companies' capital funds have increased significantly from $1.1 billion at the end of 1984 to $2.1 billion at the end of September 1994. Under existing provisions, all directors of a finance company are jointly and severally liable for losses incurred by the company arising from the default of unsecured loans to any of its directors or any firm in which any director of the company has an interest or any corporation that is related to the finance company. The definition of "firm", however, covers only sole proprietorships and partnerships but not companies. Directors of a finance company are therefore not liable for losses arising from unsecured loans granted by the finance company to any company that a director has an interest. To close this loophole, the Bill proposes to extend the liability of such directors to include loans granted to private and non-listed public companies in which any director owns more than 50% of the share capital or controls the composition of the board. Public listed companies and their subsidiaries are excluded as they are subject to the scrutiny of the investing public and the Stock Exchange of Singapore. The next group of amendments in clause 15 sets out the provisions for requiring finance companies to assist in the investigation of drug money laundering offences. The Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act allows the investigation, tracing, freezing and seizure of proceeds from drug trafficking and provides legal assistance to foreign enforcement agencies on fulfilment of certain conditions. The new provisions would facilitate applications for production orders and granting of mutual assistance to foreign government agencies where a customer of a finance company is involved in the laundering of drug proceeds. To ensure that assistance is provided only for genuine drug trafficking investigations, a prima facie case of drug trafficking has to be established. Such assistance would be provided only if it is not contrary to the national interests of Singapore. Finance companies are required to maintain minimum reserves with the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) of 6% of their liabilities base. As in the Banking Act, the amendment to section 31 at clause 13 proposes to empower MAS to direct a finance company to make good any deficiency in such reserves within a specified period. The Bill also proposes to put into legal effect certain existing requirements which are currently imposed administratively on finance companies and to bring them in line with the requirements of the Banking Act. These provisions appearing in clauses 6 to 8 would require finance companies to:- a) make adequate provisions for bad and doubtful debts before declaring any profit or loss; b) obtain approval from MAS before the publication of interim and annual accounts in order for MAS to ensure that all the provisions of the Act have been complied with before accounts are finalised; c) submit information on loans and credit facilities granted to the finance companies' directors, employees and related borrowers to MAS on a monthly basis; and d) require directors of finance companies to disclose to their Board their personal interest in credit facilities provided by the finance company to ensure that the Board is aware of any possible conflict of interests. The Bill provides, at clause 12, for MAS to issue notices to finance companies relating to their operations and the code of conduct governing the manner in which a finance company deals with its customers, for example, informing customers of effective interest rates and disclosing to customers of the risks of financial transactions. While the Bill seeks to tighten prudential requirements of finance companies to enhance the soundness of the industry, it also proposes amendments to liberalise existing regulations to broaden the scope and activities of finance companies without compromising the standard of supervision. Firstly, the Bill provides better capitalised finance companies greater scope to expand into new businesses which may entail higher risks and therefore require higher level of capital. The Bill proposes to allow finance companies with capital funds of $100 million or more to apply to MAS for exemption from the prohibition on dealing in precious metals, foreign currency denominated securities and foreign exchange. The aggregate amount of foreign currency exposure of a finance company which is approved by MAS to conduct such foreign currency activity, however, cannot exceed 10% of its capital funds in order to ensure that the finance company does not become over exposed to foreign exchange risk. Secondly, the Bill exempts finance companies' transactions with the Government and banks from the 25% single customer loan limit and the substantial loans limit (that is, loans which exceed 15% of the finance company's capital funds). Thirdly, the Bill provides finance companies more flexibility to invest in high quality financial instruments. The Bill proposes to exclude purchases of Government securities and bonds issued by statutory corporations in Singapore from the unsecured loans limit as such securities are of low credit risk. This unsecured loans limit prohibits a finance company from granting unsecured loans of more than $5,000 to any person and the aggregate amount of such unsecured loans cannot exceed 10% of a finance company's capital funds. The other housekeeping amendments, namely, those pertaining to the imposition of penalties for breaches of regulations issued by MAS, and the definition of terms, do not warrant any special attention in addition to what has been stated in reference to them in the Explanatory Statement. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed. 2.00 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Finance Companies (Amendment) Bill is a logical extension of the Banking (Amendment) Bill that this House passed on 31st August 1993. Indeed, the two Amendment Bills share some common objectives. First, both Bills seek to tighten the admission criteria and financial and prudential requirements for financial institutions by raising the minimum capital sum, stipulating a capital adequacy ratio, and controlling certain credit facilities, such as single customer limit and unsecured loans to related parties. Second, both Bills make new provisions to facilitate the investigations of drug trafficking offences when a customer of a financial institution is involved in money laundering. These provisions in both Bills are complementary to those provisions in the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act. The Finance Companies Act was last amended in 1984, one year after the Overseas Union Finance Ltd was asked to wind up. Sir, I have also obtained some data on the growth of finance companies in Singapore. The Yearbook of Statistics and Economic Survey show that during 1983-1993, finance companies' loans and advances increased from $5.3 billion to $11.5 billion, a growth of 117% over the last 10 years. During the same period, finance companies' deposits increased from $4.6 billion to $10.6 billion, a growth of 130%. However, their capital funds only increased from $1.04 billion to $1.85 billion, a growth of 77.8% during the same period. In 1993, credit expansion of finance companies grew by 20%, double the 1992 rate. This was mainly due to high demand for car loans, housing loans and personal loans to finance share investments. In 1992-1993, the finance companies' share of non-bank loans in the domestic financial system reached 12%. However, it should be noted that, for three consecutive years since 1991, the growth in finance companies' deposits was slower than the growth of their loans. Hence, apart from updating the regulation, I feel that it is necessary to amend the Finance Companies Act to cope with the increasing size and risk exposure of this important sub-sector of our financial system. Sir, in discussing this Amendment Bill, we should bear in mind the interests of depositors versus the commercial interests of finance companies. Similarly, we should also balance between the regulations which safeguard the integrity of our financial system and the flexibility which liberalises the scope for its growth. The Minister for Finance should be commended for nearly achieving the equilibrium between the diverse interests in this Amendment Bill. Sir, let me now turn to two clauses. Clause 5 of the Amendment Bill re-enacts section 7. This new section 7 requires every finance company to have capital funds of not less than $50 million after a 8-year grace period. Clause 5 also introduces a new section 7A which stipulates that every finance company should maintain a 12% capital adequacy ratio within one year. These two requirements "will strengthen the financial fibre of finance companies in Singapore" as a finance company puts it. These new requirements also help to protect the interests of depositors and safeguard the integrity of our financial system. At the same time, the Minister is perhaps mindful of the impact of these new requirements on smaller finance companies. He has thus granted these smaller finance companies an unusually long period of eight years to meet the minimum capital sum. Sir, you may recall that under the Banking (Amendment) Act, 1993, local banks are required to meet the capital fund of $800 million within five years. May I seek some clarifications on the amended section 7? (1) how is the $50 million minimum capital fund for finance companies determined? (2) the second question which I wanted to ask is: how many existing finance companies will not be able to meet this new capital requirement? But I have noted that the Minister has just mentioned that 13 of them have no problem. So may I ask the Minister to provide a breakdown of the existing finance companies by their present capital funds, eg, those companies which have capital funds of between $50 million and $100 million and those with capital funds of more than $100 million? This $100 million benchmark is relevant to Clause 9. Sir, I also note that, under the new section 7A, the minimum 12% capital adequacy ratio for finance companies is the same as that for local banks. I have some questions here: (1) how many existing finance companies do not meet this ratio? (2) will the Minister consider extending the grace period or exercise some flexibility in the event that some finance companies fail to maintain this ratio? (3) compared to local banks, finance companies generally have lower capital funds and a higher level of risks in their loan and investment portfolios. In this regard, why is the minimum capital adequacy ratio stipulated for finance companies the same as that for local banks? Let me now turn to clause 9. Clause 9 re-enacts section 23. Under the new subsection 1(d), the exposure limit to a single customer or a group of related customers will be reduced from 30% to 25% of the finance company's capital fund. A two-year grace period is given. This amendment is again the same as the Banking (Amendment) Act, 1993. May I ask the Minister whether the exposure to single customers is more serious or widespread among finance companies than among local banks, and whether the reduction of the limit from 30% to 25% will affect finance companies more adversely than local banks as finance companies generally have a smaller capital base? The new section 23, subsections 1(b) and 1(c), extends the prohibition of finance companies' dealings to cover all precious metals, and stocks and shares and debt securities denominated in any foreign currency. However, under the new subsection (2), finance companies with not less than $100 million capital fund can apply for exemption from subsections 1(b) and 1(c), subject to the 10% limit of its capital fund and other conditions imposed by MAS. This can be seen as a relaxation as the existing subsection 1(b) under section 23 prohibits any finance company from dealing in "gold or foreign exchange of whatever kind". This should be welcomed by finance companies. As one finance company puts it: "finance companies have been given a new lease of life." However, may I ask the Minister: why is the exemption not extended to finance companies with capital funds of between $50 million and $100 million? Sir, apart from these queries and clarifications, I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish to raise a few points with regard to the Finance Companies (Amendment) Bill. Before I start, I wish to declare my interest as a director on the board of a finance company. The points I wish to raise are in the general interest of the industry. I would like to start by saying that I am, in principle, in agreement with most of the provisions proposed in the Bill. These new amendments serve to tighten the admission criteria and financial and prudential requirements for the finance companies operating in Singapore. Like Dr Ow, I would like to commend the Minister for achieving a good balance between prudency regulations and flexibility for the operations of finance companies in Singapore. I would like to comment on a few clauses in this Bill. First, on clause 5 (section 7) regarding the minimum $50 million capital funds. I agree with the requirement in this new section 7 which states that the existing finance companies should have a minimum capital fund of $50 million. I am pleased that the finance companies are given a slightly longer 8-year period to comply. This will enable finance companies to have time to either raise their capital funds or implement sale or merger with other finance companies. This measure will definitely help to enhance the financial strength of the remaining finance companies which wish to operate in this industry. Next, on the new section 7A regarding the capital adequacy ratio. This new section requires finance companies to maintain a capital adequacy ratio of not less than 12%, or such percentage as may be determined by the Authority. I wish to make a point that to ensure a level playing field in the competition between the finance companies and the banks, I would ask the Authority to set the same standards for both banks and finance companies. For example, in arriving at the formula for calculating the ratio, such as the definition of the risk weighted assets, the same basis should be used, if not more favourable, for finance companies as compared to banks. As the Minister has said, finance companies are already facing very fierce competition from the banks. Sir, at clause 7 (section 20) finance companies are required to publish their audited annual balance sheet and profit and loss account or such other details as required by the Authority in four daily newspapers, that means, in Malay, Tamil, Chinese and English papers. While this provision is inserted in the proposed Finance Companies (Amendment) Bill, in comparison, the recent amendment to the Banking Act requires banks to publish in such papers as prescribed by the Authority. I understand that the Authority has only the requirement that banks will publish their accounts in two daily papers, usually the English and Chinese papers. It seems that what has in fact happened is that in bringing the provisions and procedures of the Finance Companies (Amendment) Bill to be in line with the Banking Act, the old version of the section in the Banking Act has been used. Therefore, I would like to ask the Minister whether he would like to give the same flexibility to finance companies as has been given to the banks in the publication of their accounts. Finally, Sir, I notice that there is also a provision in clause 9 (section 23) that finance companies which raise their capital funds to above $100 million may apply to the Authority to expand their business scope. They can be allowed to transact in new areas, such as trading in precious metals, and investment in foreign currencies and equities. However, the scope of such expanded businesses is not exactly stated. For example, they are allowed to invest in foreign currencies and equities and deal in precious metals on their own account, I presume. But would they be allowed also to deal on behalf of their customers' accounts I feel that it would be more appropriate for the relevant Authority to state explicitly which are the businesses and the scope of such businesses that the finance companies can expand into. This will enable the finance companies to decide whether they want to stay within the $50 million capital fund level, or move to the second level of $100 million capital funds and enjoy a larger span of businesses. Otherwise, it would be hard for finance companies to make a reasonable judgement whether to increase their capital two-fold from $50 million to $100 million, if the additional businesses they can enter into are not well defined.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I notice that the two previous speakers have not commented on clause 15, and that is in relation to the new sections 33A and 33B. These two new sections relate to drug money laundering. I have read these two new sections and I cannot find any problem with the new section 33B. The Government can only take action to assist foreign authority in its investigation into a foreign offence. In other words, under the new section 33B, there must already be an offence committed abroad, then the Attorney-General on our side can assist the foreign government. This is mainly done under the provisions of the Drug Trafficking (Confiscation of Benefits) Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act. But as regards the new section 33A, there is no requirement of a prima facie offence committed abroad. Under the new section 33A, subsection (3)(a), the first part relates to a foreign offence, but the second part states that "in any other case, that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that a specified person has carried on or has benefitted from drug trafficking;". This particular part of this section is rather wide. As long as you are suspicious of a person who suddenly brings in a couple of million dollars to Singapore, you can suspect that the money is derived from drug money. So I would like to ask the Minister what other safeguards there are for Singaporeans because I have heard this spoken in Singapore - this may not be true - that as soon as a Singaporean brings in lots of money, the IRAS and other relevant Government departments would like to know where the money comes from. But for foreigners, if they bring money into Singapore out of the blue, no questions are asked. So if there is such a section, it will be additional grounds for the Government to ask a Singaporean if he seemingly has no business and out of the blue he brings home lots of money, there you are, a finger can be pointed at him. So what are the safeguards in such cases? Of course, the hearing is in camera but still once a person is called to answer certain charges, I think the damage has already been done. Of course, the Minister also says that the Government would only do things under this Act in regard to national interest. I hope it will be done. As I turn over the pages of the Bill, I notice that under clause 16 (amending section 57) the punishment section seems to be paltry. It imposes a fine not exceeding $5,000 or with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or with both. I do not know what these punishments are really for, but if they are for drug money laundering, then they would appear rather feeble.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Dr Ow has asked a series of seven questions which I will try to answer in turn and Mr Leong has also asked three questions. The first question raised by Dr Ow is how the $50 million minimum capital sum for finance companies determined. This figure was based on an assessment by MAS of the desirable minimum level of capital which finance companies ought to have in order to ensure that finance companies are sufficiently well capitalised and to provide an assurance to the public. The figure was decided in consultation with the Finance Houses Association of Singapore which originally asked for a minimum sum of $80 million. The reason for the higher figure is that they felt that a higher capital sum would enhance the status of the finance companies and assure depositors that they are financially sound and to improve their competitiveness relative to banks which had been encroaching into their areas. But the MAS decided to maintain the figure at $50 million initially subject to future reviews. It believes that $50 million is adequate for the time being. The second question is how many existing finance companies would not be able to meet this new capital requirement and how many companies have capital sums below $50 million and so forth. Of the 23 finance companies, 10 are presently unable to meet the $50 million capital requirement. Since two of these are subsidiaries of banks, they should have no problem in raising the additional capital. The others will have eight years which I provides ample time for them to meet the increased funding requirements. The capital funding position of finance companies is as follows: Those with capital funds below $50 million, there are 10 of them. Between $50 million and $100 million, there are six. Those with funds above $100 million, there are seven. The third question is how many existing finance companies do not meet the 12% capital adequacy ratio and whether some flexibility might be introduced to assist them in case they cannot meet this requirement. Of the 23 finance companies, only five are currently unable to meet the capital adequacy ratio. However, the five finance companies should be able to meet the requirement within the one year grace period as most of their ratios are not much below the 12% level. I think they should have no real difficulty in meeting the requirement. If they are still unable to do so by the end of the grace period, they have the option of reducing their loan figure to meet this requirement. The fourth question is why the same capital adequacy ratio applied to banks is also applied to finance companies. I should point out that in computing the capital adequacy ratio, the credit risk of the assets of a financial institution is already taken into account in the computation. In other words, the capital required to support a particular portfolio loan is calculated from the type of composition of the loan portfolio and the risk associated with it. Companies with the same total portfolio of, say, $100 million could have quite different capital requirements, depending on their risk profile. So the capital adequacy ratio itself and the formula used to provide for the risk is different between different companies and different between banks and finance companies. The fifth question is whether the reduction in exposure from 30% to 25% for single customers will affect finance companies. We do not think so because this is a prudential requirement which already applies to banks, and finance companies should be able to meet this because their assets and capital have increased substantially over the years. If a finance company wishes to extend more loans to a single customer, then all it need do is to increase its capital. The basic requirement is to ensure that prudential risk is reduced. Finally, Dr Ow has asked why the exemption granted to finance companies with capital sums exceeding $100 million to allow them to invest in foreign currency assets and gold and other precious metals should not be extended also to companies with capital funds between $50 million and $100 million. The reason is that dealing in foreign currency, whether in currencies or equities or bonds, involves a considerably higher risk and therefore only companies with adequate personnel and systems in place should be allowed to deal in these foreign currency assets. Any finance company with capital below $100 million would find it difficult to justify acquiring the expertise and the techniques necessary to deal in these securities adequately because they are also subject to the 10% capital limit on foreign currency exposures. So the amount of funds which they have available for operating in this area would be quite small and the MAS assesses that it is not worth their while if they have capital funds less than $100 million to venture into an area like foreign assets. Mr Leong Horn Kee has asked three questions. The first question is whether the 12% capital adequacy ratio should not be also applied to banks. I have said that this is already an existing condition for banks and I have explained how the capital adequacy ratio actually works. So it poses no special disability or disadvantage to finance companies. He has also asked whether the finance companies should be required to publish their annual accounts in four languages as required under the Banking Act. Under the Banking Act, banks which collect deposits of less than $250,000 from persons would be required to publish accounts in four languages because they cover a whole range of small depositors and it is important that these people are aware of the financial affairs of the company. For wholesale banks which collect large amounts exceeding $250,000, then they are given the discretion to publish their accounts in English. As all finance companies collect retail deposits, they are therefore required to publish their accounts in the newspapers in the four official languages. However, as with the Banking Act, the MAS will prescribe the format in which the accounts need to be published and it is the intention to allow finance companies to publish their accounts in a condensed form to reduce the cost burden. Mr Leong Horn Kee has also asked, with the increase of the capital sum of finance companies from the present level to $50 million, what would be the range of businesses which finance companies can do. I should like to point out that in fact finance companies do practically everything that a bank does in the local Singapore dollar market. They are not allowed to issue cheques. Finance companies collect fixed and saving deposits from the public and lend money to the public. They provide general financing for motor vehicles, consumer durables and mortgage loans for housing. They are also allowed to lend to the various sectors such as building and construction, shipping, general commerce and manufacturing as well as to professionals and individuals. In other words, they are engaged in lending for housing loans, hire purchase of cars, hire purchase of consumer durables and they make personal loans. The limitation is that finance companies are not allowed to lend more than $5,000 unsecured whereas banks are allowed to do so. For finance companies which have raised the capital sums to $100 million or more, flexibility has been allowed to allow them to invest their capital and to trade in foreign currencies and foreign assets to improve the yield on their capital funds. Whilst the increase in capital funds is required for prudential reasons, sufficient flexibility for the larger capitalised companies has been provided so that they can more effectively compete with the banks and sustain their development into the future. Mr Chiam has asked two questions relating to drug offences. He feels that the scope for Singaporeans, particularly those who are being charged under these changes, is too wide and therefore there is a risk that people will be inadvertently caught. I have said that the provisions are such that for the charges to stand, there should be a prima facie case that the offence has been committed and that the court is satisfied. I think this is quite a significant safeguard so that no casual offences would be incurred by Singaporeans. As to whether the fines are adequate, I think for the time being we consider them to be so. Confiscation, in fact, is the major deterrent.

Sir, under the new section 33A, I do not think it mentions anything about a prima facie case. It just merely states "if there is a reasonable suspicion". That is the reason why I thought it was too wide.

The court must be satisfied with the conditions before it makes an order.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Dr Richard Hu Tsu Tau]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Government seeks constantly to improve its service to the public. This Bill is an example of these efforts. The Bill will provide the legal framework to introduce a One-Stop Change of Address Reporting Service, or OSCARS, in short. How OSCARS will work An IC holder who changes his residential address is required under the National Registration Act ("the NRA") to report his new residential address to the National Registration Department ("the NRD"). He is also required under other written laws to report the new address to other Government departments, statutory authorities or public officers (I group them as "agencies") with whom he has dealings. These agencies include the Inland Revenue Department, the Registry of Companies and Businesses, the Registry of Vehicles, the Traffic Police, and so on. The IC holder who changes his residential address has to report his change of address to different agencies. For example, if he uses his residential address for income tax purposes, he has to inform the Comptroller of Income Tax. If he holds a driving licence, he has to notify the Deputy Commissioner of Police. If he is an operationally ready national serviceman, he has to inform his unit. It is inconvenient for the IC holder to report his change of address to all the Government agencies that he has dealings with. He also runs the risk of forgetting to report the change to some and thereby committing an offence. Often, too, these agencies have a window period for reporting. For example, an operationally ready national serviceman has to inform his unit within seven days of his change of address. When OSCARS is implemented, an IC holder need no longer make multiple reports of his change of residential address to the different agencies. The task will become more convenient and simple as he needs only to report the change once. The reporting can be done at the National Registration Office (NRO) in Colombo Court, any Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) or any Police Division Headquarters (HQ). The information will then be transmitted via computer links to participating agencies on the next working day. The participating agencies will then update their records accordingly. Apart from making it easier for the IC holder to report his change of address to all the different Government agencies which require him to do so, the risk of him forgetting to report his change of address to these agencies will be eliminated. OSCARS is targeted to be implemented in March 1995. Eleven agencies will be participants. Other agencies will be added as and when they wish to join OSCARS. Amendments to the National Registration Act and other Acts For OSCARS to work, the Commissioner of National Registration will be required to transmit address changes reported under the NRA. The participating agencies will accept the information of a change of residential address transmitted, without requiring the IC holder to report the change separately to them. With this, the IC holder would have satisfied the respective written laws of the participating agencies that require him to report his change of residential address once he reports the change under the NRA. As such, section 8 of the NRA will be amended to confer upon the Commissioner a duty to transmit a change of residential address reported under the NRA to the agencies whose own laws require a change of residential address to be reported. A new provision will be added to the NRA to exclude the Government and any person involved in transmitting addresses under OSCARS from being liable for any loss or damage suffered by anyone due to errors or omissions made in good faith and in the ordinary course of duty. The indemnity will also cover persons receiving the address change. This provision is not a new idea as it is also found in other legislation such as the Companies Act, the Urban Redevelopment Authority Act and the Singapore Broadcasting Authority Act. Amendments will be made to the relevant Acts and Subsidiary Legislation of participating agencies to provide that a person will be deemed to have complied with his requirement to report his change of residential address to the agencies if he has reported his change of address under the NRA. There are four Acts which contain provisions requiring a change of residential address to be reported. They will be amended by consequential amendments to the NRA. These Acts are:-

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think all Singaporeans welcome this One-Stop Change of Address Reporting System, otherwise known as OSCARS. This name given is very appropriate, especially to film lovers. Oscars are given every year, I think, to the best film and the best performance in the film industry. And also I think fish lovers would welcome this name - "OSCARS". I believe it is the name of a fancy fish that is very popular among aquarium keepers. I think every Singaporean would welcome this change. Those who attend court will know that many summonses are issued. I do not know so much about pharmacists, but I know for sure that business people and income taxpayers who have not paid their income tax on time would welcome this change, because the very common reason given is that the Government notices never reach their addresses. So with this change, it is very convenient as they do not have to go to so many other departments to change their addresses. In the first instance, if they do not receive one notice, they are informed in other areas in which they are involved. So I think Singaporeans will definitely welcome this change. The only comment I can make is why the Government has taken so long in implementing this system when computerisation is always a priority in the Government's programme. Of course, we are awaiting for the other link-up and two areas which quickly come to my mind are motorcar registration, ie, the registration of owners of motorcars, and in regard to the driving licence. I think these are the areas in which many Singaporeans have been subject to court action and, in fact, not long ago we heard that many of the motorists, something like 44,000, have not paid up their fines for parking offences. One of the reasons why they were called to court is that maybe the notices have been sent to the wrong address. They have not reported the change of address to the relevant authority in regard to parking offences. So I can conclude that we really welcome OSCARS.

Sir, I take it that Mr Chiam is complimenting the NRD for introducing the system. I do not think it is a question of lateness. It is a question of getting the act together and making sure that enough agencies participate before the system can be implemented. As regards his point about the people who hold driving licences and motorcar registration, if they have their residential address as stated in their identity cards, and if they change it, then of course it would straightaway be reflected in the various records to be kept by the subscribing agencies. For businesses, if the business is registered as a business address, that is a separate matter. This Bill will include people who use their residential address for business, or who use their residential address in the registration of the business name. The agencies will be notified. I just want to make that point very clear.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." The Parks and Trees Act was enacted in 1975 to provide for the development, protection and regulation of public parks and gardens and for the preservation and growing of trees and plants. The Act was amended in 1982 and 1987. Trees take a long time to grow. The Act provides for their preservation by allowing the Minister to designate areas within which trees with a girth exceeding one metre may not be felled without the permission of the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation. The Bill seeks to define these areas as "Tree Conservation Areas" and to empower the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation to require the owner or occupier of properties within the Tree Conservation Areas to preserve and maintain the trees on their properties. This will help ensure that mature trees continue to survive and grow. Where trees or plants pose a danger to life or may damage property, the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation is empowered, under existing provisions, to serve a notice to the occupier of a property to remove them. The Bill seeks to increase the penalties for failure to comply. In such cases, the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation will also be empowered to carry out the necessary measures to remove the source of the danger and to recover the costs for doing so. The Bill seeks to empower the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation to authorise any person or company to construct and operate facilities in public parks and other recreational grounds. This provision will allow a wider range of facilities to be provided by the private sector in our parks. The Bill seeks to facilitate enforcement action by improving on the procedures for serving of notices under the Act and its rules. It introduces provisions to allow service of notice on the owner of a vehicle by affixing the notice onto the vehicle. This will facilitate the serving of notices for offences related to vehicles in our parks as in the Road Traffic Act. To deal adequately with deregistered vehicles which have been abandoned in public parks, the Bill seeks to extend the existing definition of a vehicle owner to include the last registered owner. The Bill seeks to update the maximum penalties provided for by the Act, as they have not been changed since 1982. The penalties will be increased to enhance their deterrent effects. It is necessary and timely to introduce amendments and update the Parks and Trees Act. The Parks and Trees (Amendment) Bill will enable the Parks and Recreation Department to effectively carry out its responsibilities to maintain and enhance our Garden City. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this amendment in principle. I think everybody in Singapore loves to see Singapore becoming a green and clean city. This provision in the Bill in regard to felling of trees that are more than one metre in girth does not distinguish the types of trees. Because in the tropics, we have got many softwood trees and they are very fast growing. For example, the Angsana trees are in fact instant trees. So I think there must be a distinction made between softwood, semi-hardwood and hardwood trees. It is wrong to cut down a hardwood tree because its growth period takes a long time. But in the case of some trees, they grow almost overnight. Even if you cut them, they can be grown within one to two years and they will be mature during that period of time. So this Bill does not distinguish this point. I hope the Ministry, in implementing this Act, will take into account whether they are fast growing trees or slow growing trees because I see that the penalty has been increased from $2,000 to $10,000. That is the only point I wish to make.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the preservation of trees in this Bill is directed at those trees in the Tree Conservation Areas. The Ministry is already making a distinction that, in Singapore, there will be areas where there are many mature trees, both hardwood and softwood, and we would like to keep the ambience in the areas. For such areas, we designate them as Tree Conservation Areas and for trees with a girth of more than one metre, they would not be allowed to be felled. The amendment in this Bill is to also ensure that these trees are maintained. Although such trees are not allowed to be felled, some owners have not taken care to maintain the trees and the trees may suffer and they may have to be felled because of poor maintenance. So the amendment in this Bill seeks to extend both preservation and maintenance.

May I seek a clarification, Sir?

Yes.

I think you have not answered the point. You have said that you want the trees to survive and to grow. That is very good. But you must see what type of trees. Because there are some trees which are instant trees. So what harm is there in cutting them down because you can grow them instantly? We are talking about hardwood trees. These are the trees that should be preserved. Once you cut them down, you are going to take another 30 years to grow them. I think that is unreasonable. But if you can grow them overnight, what harm is done? No harm is done.

Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Chiam does exaggerate. Trees do not grow overnight. Even the Angsana trees took us a long time to grow. If not for the foresight of the Government in insisting that trees be planted from the early 1960s, we will not have the green environment that we have today. So all trees of mature girth should be preserved, whether they are hardwood or softwood.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time." This Bill seeks to amend the HUDC Housing Estates Act to facilitate upgrading of HUDC housing estates. There are 20 HUDC estates, built in four phases. The first two phases (Phases I and II), comprising eight estates, were sold by HUDC Private Limited under the HUDC Housing Estates Act. The last two phases (Phases III and IV), comprising 12 estates, were sold by HDB under the Housing and Development Act. HDB has stopped building HUDC flats since 1986. This Bill applies only to the Phases I and II estates. Phases III and IV estates are governed by the Housing and Development Act. In most respects, the Phases I and II estates are similar to private estates. Unlike HDB flats, there are no minimum occupation periods, subletting of entire flats is allowed and single persons and foreigners are allowed to buy them. Management bodies are set up by the flat owners to manage their estates. The Phases I and II estates were built since the mid-1970s. With the aging of these estates, many owners aspire to improve and upgrade their estates, both to enhance the value of their flats and to provide facilities which are usually available in private condominiums, such as swimming pools, sport amenities and clubhouses. However, under the HUDC Housing Estates Act, a proposal to upgrade or improve the estate can only be passed, as a special resolution, if not more than 10% of the flat owners in the housing estate concerned cast their votes against it. The 10% stipulated for passage of upgrading proposals is unnecessarily stringent. It limits unduly the aspirations of the Phases I and II HUDC flat owners to upgrade their estates. In comparison, for private estates under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, an upgrading proposal can be passed if owners of not more than 25% of the total share value cast their votes against it. This Bill amends the HUDC Housing Estates Act so that an upgrading proposal can be passed if not more than 25% of the flat owners vote against it. Sir, I beg to move. Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the HUDC flats are quite similar to the private flats and yet there is a difference in the law governing the HUDC flats and the private flats. I stand to be corrected. The Land Titles (Strata) Act in fact does not allow occupiers to upgrade their flats if they get 75% of the votes. I believe there must be a unanimous resolution or, if not a unanimous resolution, they must apply to the court to have their upgrading done. In regard to the HUDC flats, now there is an amendment before us that if not more than 25% vote against it, then upgrading is allowed. My query to the Minister is: how many occupiers actually comprise the 25%? Is it that everyone of the occupiers must vote and get 75%? Or is it confined to those who attend the meeting, ie, if 75% vote for it, then the majority will win? I would like to get this clarification.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in case Mr Chiam fails to recollect, we had the HUDC Housing Estates Act in the early 1970s before we had the Land Titles (Strata) Act. In the HUDC Housing Estates Act, it is stipulated that you can only have an upgrading or improvement proposal if not more than 10% object to it. That was very stringent. When we had the Land Titles (Strata) Act, we amended this to 25% following the experience of many countries. So in the private condominiums in the private housing estates under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, an upgrading proposal can be passed if the owners of not more than 25% of the total share value, ie, the number of flats, cast their votes against it. So this amendment before the House today is to bring the HUDC Housing Estates Act in line with the provisions of the Land Titles (Strata) Act. The number of votes is based on the number of occupiers in the estate and not on the number who attended the meeting.

If the Minister cares to read the Report of the Select Committee on the Land Titles (Strata) Bill, he will see that the Minister, Prof. Jayakumar, explained to one of the representors, Mr Lim Chin Joo, that the meaning of unanimous vote applies to only those who were present and voted unanimously, and not necessarily that every owner must vote. Therefore, based on that explanation, do we take it that everyone of the occupiers must vote and you must get more than 75%, or only if the people who attend the meeting voted 75% and above, you can have an upgrading? Which of the two is correct?

Sir, I will take the opportunity to check out what Mr Chiam has said. But my understanding is that under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, an upgrading is passed if not more than 25% object to it and that 25% is based on the strata values, which means all the owners of the estate. Similarly, for the HUDC Housing Estates Act, we are making the amendment that not more than 25% object to it and that means all the owners of the housing estate.

Question put, and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House. The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Lim Hng Kiang]. Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Mr Speaker, Sir, before I move the adjournment, may I remind Members that when they address another Member or the Minister, they should use the correct pronoun and not the word "you", because the word "you" refers to the Speaker. Just use "he" or "the Minister".

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn to a date to be fixed." - [Mr Wong Kan Seng]. Adjourned accordingly at Four minutes past Three o'clock pm to a date to be fixed.

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs (a) if he will give an update on the work of the Japan-Singapore partnership programme; (b) what percentage of the Gross Domestic Product goes to the programme annually; (c) what other Overseas Development Assistance Programme does Singapore participate in; and (d) what percentage of the GDP goes towards ODA.

Update of the work of the Japan-Singapore Partnership Programme The Japan-Singapore Partnership Programme (JSPP) is a partnership between Japan and Singapore to help other countries. It was announced during Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong's visit to Japan in May 1993. The main component of the JSPP is the Third Country Training Programme (TCTP), which Singapore and Japan co-sponsor for the benefit of developing countries for training in Singapore. Under the JSPP, the number of courses for the TCTP will increase from nine in this financial year to a total of 12 courses in FY 1997. The TCTP provides developing countries with training in areas where Singapore has acquired some expertise, particularly fields where Singapore has benefitted from ODA and technology transfer from Japan. These fields of training include airport and port management, information technology, productivity improvement and food packaging technology. In this financial year, more than 140 participants from developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region will receive training under this programme. We are also exploring with Japan the possibility of the joint despatch of volunteers to other countries under the JSPP. (b) What percentage of the Gross Domestic Product goes to the programme annually? In FY 1994, Singapore's share of the nine courses we co-sponsor under the TCTP with Japan will amount to around $760,000 or about 0.0008% of our GDP. (c) What other Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) programmes does Singapore participate in? Singapore has also teamed up with other donor partners to provide TCTPs to developing countries. Besides Japan, our other TCTP partners are Germany, United Kingdom, South Korea, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the United Nations Development Programme and the Asian Development Bank. Programmes in environmental management, communications and transport, health, management of public enterprises and export market development have been included under these TCTPs. Singapore also provides ODA through our training awards to ASEAN countries, member countries of the Colombo Plan as well as through the Indochina Assistance Fund (ICAF) and Myanmar Technical Assistance Fund (MTAF). The US$10 million Indochina Assistance Fund enables Singapore to assist in the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Indochina. The US$3 million Myanmar Technical Assistance Fund is aimed at helping Myanmar open up its economy and develop through technical manpower training. The ICAF and MTAF focus on upgrading the skills of the people in recipient countries through the provision of training programmes and consultancy expertise. Assistance has been also extended to a number of countries in Africa. (d) What percentage of the GDP goes towards ODA? About 0.02% of our GDP goes towards ODA.

asked the Minister for Home Affairs if he will (i) give the occupancy rates of the different prisons; (ii) outline the policy which decides the allocation of prisoners to the different prisons; and (iii) inform the House the percentage of prisoners who are illegal immigrants.

Information concerning occupancy rates of the different prisons cannot be publicised for reason of prison security. Prisoners are housed in different prisons according to their security risk classification. High risk prisoners (eg condemned prisoners, those sentenced to life or long term imprisonment) are housed in maximum security prisons. Those of lower security risk are housed in medium security prisons. About 22% of the current prison population are immigration offenders, ie they are illegal immigrants and overstayers.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts whether he will allow (i) political parties to establish a radio station; and (ii) provide a new channel on television and radio respectively for the live broadcast of Parliamentary debates.

MITA does not issue licences to political or religious organisations to run radio or TV stations. Radio and TV frequencies are scarce and when available should be put to the best use to benefit the public. It is hard to justify allowing special interest groups like political parties to run stations to promote their own causes. In a pilot project in March 1992, the old SBC carried the Budget Debate "live" on TV. The response from the public was poor, with average daily viewership averaging only 4,000. Because of such poor response, we would consider telecasting parliamentary proceedings "live" only when major Bills and issues are being discussed. The opening of Parliament and the Budget Speech by the Minister for Finance were two events telecast "live" by the old SBC. Normal parliamentary debates are broadcast by RCS and TV12 in their news bulletins and by TCS in the "Highlights from Parliament", which is a 15-minute summary of the day's proceedings.

asked the Minister for Information and the Arts what measures are employed to minimise pornography in Internet and Singnet.

MITA has been working with National Science and Technology Board (NSTB), National Computer Board (NCB) and the Technet Unit of the National University of Singapore (NUS) to prevent easy public access to undesirable materials on on-line services, including the worldwide Internet. Current services in Singapore such as Singnet and Technet, both local gateways to the worldwide Internet, have introduced measures to remove pornographic material. They include screening and eliminating newsgroups titles containing offensive keywords, periodic scanning of directories, and systemic spotchecking of picture files for obscene materials. A blacklist of newsgroups of dubious nature is maintained. MITA has made its censorship guidelines available to the Technet Unit to facilitate monitoring work by Technet. MITA is also working with Technet and Singnet on ways to regulate the new technology. We can prevent easy access to pornographic material although we cannot stop it completely. MITA is considering amendments to the Films Act to widen the definition of films to include materials on bulletin boards, and other on-line services. This will enable us to prosecute local operators who transmit objectionable materials and foreign operators who sell such materials in Singapore.

asked the Minister for Health what is the status of the Inter-Ministerial Population Committee set up in 1984 and what have been its recommendations.

In 1984, the Inter-Ministerial Population Committee (IMPC) was formed to review Singapore's population trends and policies and to make recommendations on long term measures to bring about the desired population size and composition. Based on the IMPC's deliberations and recommendations, the Government adopted in 1987 the message "Have three, and more if you can afford it" as the guide in the formulation of future population policies in Singapore. The Government also announced an extensive package of population policy measures to encourage higher fertility on 1st March 1987. The IMPC, through the Population Planning Unit of the Ministry of Health, closely monitors population trends and responses to the new population policies. Adjustments in population policy measures are made periodically.

asked the Minister for Health when his Ministry will start the labelling of cosmetic ingredients so that drug allergies can be treated.

The Ministry of Health is currently looking into regulatory or control measures for the sale of cosmetics in Singapore. These include the following: * Compulsory labelling of ingredients and batch marking of cosmetics; and * Prohibiting the use of certain preservatives and colorants which are toxic or carcinogenic. The implementation of the above measures will require among other things staff training and the promulgation of the necessary legislation. It will take about 12-18 months to implement these measures.

asked the Minister for Health what steps his Ministry have taken to promote breastfeeding and what are the future plans.

In the 1970s and early 1980s, breast-feeding declined and reached a low level of 46% in 1983. However, with better education this trend has been reversed. Nowadays, 67% of mothers breast-feed their babies. The Ministry has an on-going programme to promote breast-feeding. Women attending Government clinics and public hospitals for antenatal care are encouraged to breast-feed their babies. During the postnatal period further encouragement and help is given and breast-fed babies room-in with their mothers. Some hospitals have nurses whose specific function is to assist mothers, particularly first-time mothers, initiate and maintain breast-feeding. Members of the voluntary group, the Singapore Breast-feeding Mothers' Support Group are often at hand to provide support to breast-feeding. Hospitals also provide follow-up activities after discharge such as a hot-line or domiciliary service on request. Health educational materials such as pamphlets, posters, slide tapes and videotapes are available to health personnel for promotion of breast-feeding. Breast-feeding is incorporated into the curriculum of student nurses, medical students and pharmacy undergraduates. The importance of breast-feeding is also included in the curriculum of secondary school students in subjects like biology and home economics. In 1979 the Ministry set up the Sale of Infant Food Ethics Committee which drew up the "Code of Ethics on Sale of Infant Formula Products in Singapore". The Code aims to protect breast-feeding and has served as a useful working document for all who are involved in the promotion and sale of infant formula products in Singapore. Adherence to the Code by milk firms is obligatory. This is being monitored by the Committee. To create a more suportive environment for breast-feeding mothers, government clinics will have a breast-feeding room for mothers to breast-feed their babies while in the clinics, where feasible.

asked the Minister for Health (a) whether a Singapore government representative was sent to attend the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo and, if not, what is the reason; and (b) whether Singapore signed the ICPD Programme of Action.

Singapore was represented at the 1994 International Conference on Population & Development (ICPD) in Cairo at the Senior Officials level. Dr Paul Cheung, Director (Population Planning Unit), led the Singapore delegation. No signatory is required for the ICPD Programme of Action as the document is only meant to serve as a guide for countries to draw up their own population programmes.

asked the Minister for Labour what are the respective percentages of our workforce and graduates who are employed by (i) the government, statutory bodies and government-linked companies; (ii) multi-national companies; (iii) local private companies; and (iv) small and medium-sized enterprises.

The Ministry of Labour does not have the information requested.

asked the Minister for the Environment whether the Corrective Work Order scheme has worked as a deterrent measure against littering.

The Corrective Work Order (CWO) is served on persons who have committed serious littering offences or who were repeat offenders. Since CWO was introduced in November 1992, a total of 572 littering offenders have been issued with CWOs by the Courts. The fact that none of those who had served CWO has been caught for littering suggests that CWO has been effective in deterring them from repeating the offence. Places at which CWOs have been carried out, eg. East Coast Park and void decks in some Town Council estates, are now much cleaner. This suggests that the sight of offenders carrying out the CWO has also been a deterrent to others, from littering. Overall, the number of littering offences has dropped from 432 per month in 1990 to 349 in 1994.

asked the Acting Minister for National Development if he will instruct Public Works Department to direct the road construction contractors not to resurface manhole covers of sewage and telephone wire pipes with tar when they reconstruct the roads or do tar-topping.

When a road pavement is resurfaced, its level is raised slightly. The existing manholes have to be surfaced over to obtain a safe and flat pavement surface for traffic. If the manholes are not surfaced over, there will be localised depressions. The positions of the manholes are marked after the road is resurfaced. The services departments will later remove the asphalt over these manholes and then raise the level of these manhole covers to be flush with the new road pavement.

asked the Acting Minister for Community Development if he will give the number of unlicensed child care centres that have been brought to his attention for the years 1991 to 1993 and what possible steps can be instituted to check the operation of unlicensed child care centres.

Over the last 3 years, 15 facilities suspected to be operating as unlicensed child care centres were brought to the attention of the Ministry. However, on inspection they were found to be mainly small playgroups, kindergartens or before and after-school care programmes. There are provisions in the Child Care Centres Act for the prosecution of operators of unlicensed child care centres. Anyone found guilty of operating an unlicensed child care centre is liable on conviction to: - a fine not exceeding $5,000; or - an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years; or - both fine and imprisonment. All reports of unlicensed child care centres are immediately investigated by the Ministry. We will not hesitate to take action against anyone found operating a child care centre without a licence.

asked the Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs what is the total amount of contributions collected from Singaporean Muslims since the last mosque was built and what plans he has for the contributions.

The last mosque built was the Ar-Raudhah Mosque at Bukit Batok, which was completed in January 1993 at a cost of $8.1 million. From January 1993 to October 1994, the total amount collected from Singaporean Muslims under the Mosque Building Fund was $7.4 million. In the next two years, one new mosque currently under construction will be completed and another built. If the total amount collected from Singaporean Muslims is insufficient to pay for the cost of these two mosques, the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura will assist in providing funds to meet the shortfall. More mosques will be constructed from 1997 onwards, for which plans are being prepared.